A potential deal with the Indians could be close at hand. Indians owner Larry Dolan launched the regional sports network SportsTime Ohio in 2006, with much of the RSN’s programming centered on Indians games.

But since its launch, SportsTime Ohio has had trouble with its cable carriage deals, which have among the lowest rates of all RSNs. Cable operators pay an average of $2.21 per subscriber per month, according to SNL Kagan, which is below the national RSN average of $2.49.

It’s unclear whether Fox is interested in picking up the Indians’ rights for its FS Ohio RSN, which already carries games from the Reds, Cavaliers and Blue Jackets. Fox also could be looking to buy the channel outright.

Rumors of SportsTime Ohio’s pending sale have been around for several years. Time Warner Cable has long been mentioned as a potential suitor. But sources say that talks with Fox have progressed fast enough that they expect a deal to be finalized before the 2013 MLB season.

Wonder if this will just fall under the umbrella of Fox Sports Ohio or if there may actually be enough of a market for a Fox Sports Cleveland (or some variation).

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

This is another domino in the sale of the Indians. Contracts are all cleared up (especially after we trade Droobs, Choo, C. Perez and maybe Justin and Carlos.) Now the sale of the Dolan channel. New manager, and a nice crop of kids coming up with the Lindor wave.

Calling my shot...new owner sometime in 2013.

Edit: And the more I think of it (going back to my rant about Shapiro) those statements indicate to me a guy who knows that attendance is NOT the highest priority this year. Dolan could care less. He wants out, and he's instructed Mark to do whatever it takes to make the team an attractive investment. Win/losses are of no concern. Financial attractiveness (ie - lack of contractual commitment) is priority #1.

/I can dream...

Last edited by bookelly on Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

According to Tony Rizzo (still works for Fox8 and has friends at STO) Fox is buying STO to get the Indians contract. They don't think they can move the Indians to FSO by next season, so STO might be around through next season.

I still don't understand why folks expect a new owner (unless it's Mark Cuban, which it will not be) to deficit spend in order to overpay free agents to come to Cleveland. And regardless, free agents almost always underperform relative to their contract value. Not always, but usually. Buying FA's isn't the secret to baseball success. It's drafting, scouting, trading and finding FA bargains that the rest of the league undervalues for whatever reason. Money doesn't buy happiness, and it sure as hell doesn't buy the playoffs.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

gotribe31 wrote:I still don't understand why folks expect a new owner (unless it's Mark Cuban, which it will not be) to deficit spend in order to overpay free agents to come to Cleveland. And regardless, free agents almost always underperform relative to their contract value. Not always, but usually. Buying FA's isn't the secret to baseball success. It's drafting, scouting, trading and finding FA bargains that the rest of the league undervalues for whatever reason. Money doesn't buy happiness, and it sure as hell doesn't buy the playoffs.

Good point. Does anyone know how much the Tribe spends on its scouting department compared to the other clubs?

"I don't think they're building chemical weapons in Berea. But they might be. I can't say for sure."Chuck Klosterman

pup wrote:I still don't understand why we believe it would require deficit spending to pay for free agents? Because the guys making the money say so?

To overpay the kind of game-changing free agents some fans expect us to sign? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what it would take. I'm not saying they can't spend a little more $ than they are currently, but to expect the Indians to be able to compete for free agents with the teams that get 5x the TV revenue alone isn't realistic in my eyes.

Rather than begging for a new owner who will throw $250 million at Pujols, we should be begging for a front office that consistently and effectively identify and acquire the best amature talent. Because that's how this team is going to compete long term, regardless of ownership in my opinion.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

pup wrote:I still don't understand why we believe it would require deficit spending to pay for free agents? Because the guys making the money say so?

To overpay the kind of game-changing free agents some fans expect us to sign? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what it would take. I'm not saying they can't spend a little more $ than they are currently, but to expect the Indians to be able to compete for free agents with the teams that get 5x the TV revenue alone isn't realistic in my eyes.

Rather than begging for a new owner who will throw $250 million at Pujols, we should be begging for a front office that consistently and effectively identify and acquire the best amature talent. Because that's how this team is going to compete long term, regardless of ownership in my opinion.

That follows Lead's 90% rule, IMO.

I don't remember Pujols and his $250M being a sticking point for a majority of the fan base. It is more the Willingham $30M and the fear of year 3 crippling an organization that people do not believe is true.

pup wrote:I still don't understand why we believe it would require deficit spending to pay for free agents? Because the guys making the money say so?

To overpay the kind of game-changing free agents some fans expect us to sign? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what it would take. I'm not saying they can't spend a little more $ than they are currently, but to expect the Indians to be able to compete for free agents with the teams that get 5x the TV revenue alone isn't realistic in my eyes.

Rather than begging for a new owner who will throw $250 million at Pujols, we should be begging for a front office that consistently and effectively identify and acquire the best amature talent. Because that's how this team is going to compete long term, regardless of ownership in my opinion.

That follows Lead's 90% rule, IMO.

I don't remember Pujols and his $250M being a sticking point for a majority of the fan base. It is more the Willingham $30M and the fear of year 3 crippling an organization that people do not believe is true.

Right, I'm not referring to the majority of fans (or you in particular), but the Cleve.com types are more prevelant than we realize insulated here in our fairly intelligent forums.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

I wasn't trying to be Cleve.com-esq. The Willingham contract is exactly what I'm talking about. When you can't even spend $10 Mil per year for a high-quality player who fills a GLARING hole on a supposed contending team...step aside and let somebody come in here who will.

After that win we had against Verlander I was on-line looking to buy a plane ticket back to C-town to catch a penant race. Then we lost like 18-20 (I can't recall the real numbers but it was an epic fail.) But had they continued to win, I'm certain they would have packed the house.

Book, I wasn't referring to you either. Like I said, this board (for the most part) is full of very smart baseball fans.

But I'm positive that they wouldn't have "packed the house" after that Verlander game. I came back to a couple of games down the strech in 2006 when a playoff berth seemed all but locked up. Saw them beat the Rays once and lose once. There were 25k in the stands, tops. I came back in 2007 for every home playoff game except one, and while the games were sold out, there were a smattering of empty seats and the streets were full of scalpers bemoaning the resale market and dumping their tickets below face value, even prior to the 1st pitch. Look at the attendance numbers from last season when the team was in first, and 2011 in May/June before they fell off a cliff...the fans were still staying home in droves.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

gotribe31 wrote:Book, I wasn't referring to you either. Like I said, this board (for the most part) is full of very smart baseball fans.

But I'm positive that they wouldn't have "packed the house" after that Verlander game. I came back to a couple of games down the strech in 2006 when a playoff berth seemed all but locked up. Saw them beat the Rays once and lose once. There were 25k in the stands, tops. I came back in 2007 for every home playoff game except one, and while the games were sold out, there were a smattering of empty seats and the streets were full of scalpers bemoaning the resale market and dumping their tickets below face value, even prior to the 1st pitch. Look at the attendance numbers from last season when the team was in first, and 2011 in May/June before they fell off a cliff...the fans were still staying home in droves.

hmm...I guess the "most profitable team in baseball" word that we all suspected got out premature. I, and everyone else, should boycot this asshole Dolan team until he sells. Disgusting. +31 million? Fuck you Larry.

/and btw- have any of you guys ever met a cool guy named Larry? Larry is just a fuckwit name.

Last edited by bookelly on Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

gotribe31 wrote:Book, I wasn't referring to you either. Like I said, this board (for the most part) is full of very smart baseball fans.

But I'm positive that they wouldn't have "packed the house" after that Verlander game. I came back to a couple of games down the strech in 2006 when a playoff berth seemed all but locked up. Saw them beat the Rays once and lose once. There were 25k in the stands, tops. I came back in 2007 for every home playoff game except one, and while the games were sold out, there were a smattering of empty seats and the streets were full of scalpers bemoaning the resale market and dumping their tickets below face value, even prior to the 1st pitch. Look at the attendance numbers from last season when the team was in first, and 2011 in May/June before they fell off a cliff...the fans were still staying home in droves.

hmm...I guess the "most profitable team in baseball" word that we all suspected got out premature. I, and everyone else, should boycot this asshole Dolan team until he sells. Disgusting. +31 million? Fuck you Larry.

/and btw- have any of you guys ever met a cool guy named Larry that wasn't a drug dealer or your Dungeon Master (D&D - not Pups basement) in 1982? Larry is just a fuckwit name.

gotribe31 wrote:Book, I wasn't referring to you either. Like I said, this board (for the most part) is full of very smart baseball fans.

But I'm positive that they wouldn't have "packed the house" after that Verlander game. I came back to a couple of games down the strech in 2006 when a playoff berth seemed all but locked up. Saw them beat the Rays once and lose once. There were 25k in the stands, tops. I came back in 2007 for every home playoff game except one, and while the games were sold out, there were a smattering of empty seats and the streets were full of scalpers bemoaning the resale market and dumping their tickets below face value, even prior to the 1st pitch. Look at the attendance numbers from last season when the team was in first, and 2011 in May/June before they fell off a cliff...the fans were still staying home in droves.

hmm...I guess the "most profitable team in baseball" word that we all suspected got out premature. I, and everyone else, should boycot this asshole Dolan team until he sells. Disgusting. +31 million? Fuck you Larry.

/and btw- have any of you guys ever met a cool guy named Larry that wasn't a drug dealer or your Dungeon Master (D&D - not Pups basement) in 1982? Larry is just a fuckwit name.

I know a very good Dungeon Master named Larry. This is 100% True.

I deleted that...never met Pup personally, so I can't jab him like that. But I hope to meet most of you soon.

Spin wrote:The Indians salary was $78,430,300Cincinnati's was $82,203,616Washington's was $81,336,143Oakland's, $55,372,500 23 million dollars less than the Tribe.All won divisions.

-SNIP-

And he needs to find someone who won't spend it on 40 year old has-beens.

Point taken. Reds are the model. ID and acquire (in draft or trade) a couple studs to be brought up from the minors (Bruce, Votto). Buy low eg. on a Phillips. Bid on a intl guy like a Chapman. Trade for eg. a Cueto and a Latos for the FOR. Develop a Bailey.

Foremost, you need the starting staff. Gotta at least have that, even in the AL.The 2-3 studs in the lineup come next, and the rest can be Dellucis, Michaels types.

FYI I saw a projection on the Reds' team payroll for 2013- $93mil and rising. Just depends where you are in the window, and the contract status of your studs.

Cleveland would sustain such a sliding scale of payroll, if their FO was able to make the decisions that brought in the starting rotation and the 2-3 everyday lineup studs.